[2017] KEELC 1444 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 1444 (KLR)

The court found that the respondents did not oppose the application to amend the petition, and there was no evidence that the amendment would cause them any prejudice. In the exercise of its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules and Act, the court allowed the amendment to ensure that all necessary parties were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 1444 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Elias Ntwiga; Respondent: Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Meru South; Respondent: Director of Adjudication; Respondent: Land Registrar Meru South; Respondent: Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Anderson Njagi M’Murianki; Respondent: Jackson Ireri Abidan; Respondent: Anderson Miriti Abidan; Respondent: Bonface Mbae Abidan
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Petition 8 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Petition
Outcome
application allowed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Joinder of Parties, Land Adjudication Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Amendment of Pleadings Joinder of Parties Land Adjudication Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elias Ntwiga

Applicant

Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer Meru South

Respondent

Director of Adjudication

Respondent

Land Registrar Meru South

Respondent

Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Anderson Njagi M’Murianki

Respondent

Jackson Ireri Abidan

Respondent

Anderson Miriti Abidan

Respondent

Bonface Mbae Abidan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Amend Petition

  1. 1 Whether the petitioner should be granted leave to amend the petition to include more respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the amendment would prejudice the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents did not oppose the application to amend the petition, and there was no evidence that the amendment would cause them any prejudice. In the exercise of its discretion under the Civil Procedure Rules and Act, the court allowed the amendment to ensure that all necessary parties were before the court and the real issues in controversy could be determined. Costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

application allowed

Orders

  • The petitioner is granted leave to amend the petition to include more respondents.
  • Costs of the application to be in the cause.